The Second Amendment, guns, and the Supreme Court
- Jul 3, 2008 - 4
The verdict is now in from the U.S. Supreme Court—the Second Amendment means what it says. In a historic 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that no government entity—local, state, or federal—can totally ban handguns from law-abiding, local citizens.
As Associate Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion,
“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. Those include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”
Scalia’s majority opinion is a masterpiece of jurisprudence and sound legal reasoning. In the future, when anyone asks what someone means when they say they want federal judges who are “strict constructionist, original intent jurists,” one need simply refer them to Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller as the prime example of what such a jurist’s opinions will look like.
The delight of those who believe that the Second Amendment does guarantee the individual right to “keep and bear arms” is tempered by the fact that four justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) disagreed vehemently with the majority (Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito). The stark reality is the individual right to “keep and bear arms” rests currently on the fragile foundation of a single Supreme Court justice’s vote.
The next president could quite possibly nominate judges who fill up to three Supreme Court vacancies—yet one more issue for American voters to ponder as they prepare to cast their ballots for the 44th president of the United States this November.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission supports the nomination and approval of judges who are strict constructionists, as well as advocating for court rulings that honor the Constitution’s original intent. If you would like to help us continue our efforts, please click here.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, ,
4 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jul 8th, 2008, at 12:36pm, Charles Enlow wrote:
Strict construction is the only way to view our Constitution. Either the document has a meaning commensurate with its grammar and the original intent of its framers - as expressed by them in their speeches, public and private papers - or it is the “living document\” that the liberals claim it is. That is to say, the Constitution in their view changes over time, in keeping with the preferences of those in power. If that is the case, we effectively have no constitution, and words mean nothing. Many have already long since adopted this view in regard to Holy Writ, alas…
2 On Jul 8th, 2008, at 2:41pm, Jerry Minor wrote:
You state:
“...no government entity—local, state, or federal—can totally ban handguns from law-abiding, local citizens.”
While I hope that this is the eventual result of Heller, it remains to be seen whether this finding will apply to any entity other than federal due to the courts patch-work approach to incorporation under the 14th amendment.
I believe that we still need to see what shakes out in places like Chicago and San Francisco prior to applying this ruling to all government entities.
3 On Jul 8th, 2008, at 2:43pm, Daniel Wallace wrote:
I couldn’t agree more with Charles’s comments above. Well said. What worries me is the lack of moral consensus in our culture which guided the original framers of our constitution and our laws. When this loss is felt at the level of the Judiciary we end up with simply another form of tyranny not all that different than what our forefathers fought against when they declared independence. I sure hope the Church doesn’t sleep through this.
4 On Jul 8th, 2008, at 8:04pm, Mike wrote:
I find it incredible that four justices, who obviously have an agenda, because how can anybody with a lick of common sense can not understand “The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.” I can only conclude that they do not care what the constitution says. They only want to disregard it in favor of their biased views. They do not want to interpet the law, they want it to fit the way they wish it to be, instead of what it plainly says.